Why we must protect all speech.Even lame comedies.

Sony Pictures has put a halt to distribution of the movie The Interview in the wake of death threats coming out of North Korea.

I don’t blame Sony or theater owners. There is something compelling in “Show this film and we will kill people.”

This is not the first time terrorist censorship has raised its ugly head. In 2006, cartoons depicting Muhammad sparked riots and assassinations in various parts of the world. It made for rather big news, yet few media dared publish the cartoons. Many even shrunk from reporting on the matter.

Again, I don’t blame them. There is something equally compelling in “Publish these and I’ll kill you. Publish that I’m threatening to kill you and I’ll kill you for that, too.”

Many nations are not fond of government censorship. The United States in particular is not allowed to prevent you from publishing what you want, nor to execute, jail, or fine you after you publish it.* These protections have been extended to news, literature, commentary, parody, satire, theater, music, film, even commercial speech.

Take this blog. It is mine, so I can censor it all I want. But government can’t. Neither can any other third party.** At least, not legally.

Therein lies the problem. For bullies and terrorists who don’t much care about the “legally” thing, that leaves a pretty big loophole.

The cartoon that sparked riots and murders around the world. Do not mistake my posting them here for an act of courage. It is, after all, almost nine years after the fact.

No matter what you think of The Interview, or for that matter of Seth Rogan and James Franco, please find a way to add your voice to the outcry. I am NOT urging theaters to put lives at risk by defying threats and showing the film. Hell, if I owned a theater, I wouldn’t show it. But at the very least, let’s be vocal in our criticism of bullies who threaten free speech. Even when said free speech is manifest in what is likely to be a lame movie.

On the positive and ironic side, North Korea has unwittingly made the film a success. After the heat inevitably dies down, the film, good or not, is sure to rack up record ticket and DVD sales.

—Steve Cuno

__________________*Exceptions acknowledged. The Supreme Court made clear that you cannot falsely cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There is Edward Showden. Lapses also acknowledged. For one example, consider the Sedition Acts of 1798, signed by President John Adams, which criminalized criticizing the president and congress, but conveniently allowed criticizing the vice president, who happened at the time to be Thomas Jefferson, whom Adams happened at the time to dislike.

**If I unjustly slander you, you can sue the daylights out of me. This is a sort of default censorship and arguably a good thing.

Will your customers live long enough to find your link to live chat?

Adobe live chat is immensely helpful—once you get there. First you must prove your worthiness. You must navigate a maze, undergo a colonoscopy, pass a written exam on String Theory, run a gauntlet (blindfolded), sacrifice an unblemished lamb (hard to find this time of year), balance a tree stump on your left index finger, don ceremonial garb, fight off seven angry gorillas (lowland), flawlessly execute 100 consecutive jumping jacks, roll in mud, swear so as to make Quentin Tarantino blush, prove you weren’t born in Kenya, and hold your breath until you expire. Only then will Adobe provide you the chat link.

At least, that’s how it felt. To be fair, the Adobe employee who helped me was informed, courteous, and helpful. It’s just that getting there was a pain. I assume Adobe makes finding your way to live chat difficult in hopes you’ll turn to FAQs and forums instead, which costs them less.

Setting out to hunt down live chat? Better pack a lunch.

You can get away with that if you’re Adobe. No one else has Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, et al. But then, there was a time when no one could topple Sears. Or WordPerfect. Or others. So even though Adobe can get away with it, they might be wise not to.

Brand • noun • What we see you do

Ad agencies are adept at twisting “brand” to mean “what we’re good at.”

Design shops will tell you that your brand is your logo and graphic standards. Would-be clever shops will tell you it’s the lame slogan they cooked up for you. Hot creative shops will tell you it’s the advertising you spend a fortune having them produce so that they can enter it in awards competitions and take home trophies.

All wrong. Woefully wrong. For presumed marketers whose job should include knowing something about branding, it is embarrassingly wrong.

Your brand is the experience you deliver not just in ads but at all points of contact. It is manifest in how you treat customers, vendors, employees, minorities, etc. It is manifest in the selection and the quality, high or low, of your products. It is manifest in your policies. It is manifest in the look of your facilities. It is manifest in your business practices. It is manifest in the public stands you take or choose not to take. It is manifest in the messages you send out via advertising, press releases, social media, and speeches.

If such are inconsistent, you have a weak brand. If such are consistent but wrongheaded or irrelevant, you have a weak brand. No matter what your ads claim. No matter how creative you think your ads are.

In short, your brand is not what you claim, but what we see you do.

Example time. This morning Verizon Wireless notified me that I had used all but one minute of my allotted calling time. I called Verizon’s customer service line. A pleasant and informed associate upgraded me to unlimited minutes. And lowered by bill by $10 per month.

In that brief encounter, Verizon’s brand was manifest in 5 ways:

1. They could have allowed me to go over my allotment—after all, I can check my status for myself—and charged me more. But they took good care of me by warning me.

2. My hold time was short.

3. The associate who helped me was likable, knowledgeable, real, and empowered to solve the problem.

4. Instead of trading me up to a costlier plan—I would have been willing—she solved the problem while lowering my rate.

5. This was not an atypical experience for me with Verizon. They have always treated me well.

Verizon is known for great customer service. I submit that it isn’t because they advertise it. It’s because they do it.

I left AT&T, mid-contract, years ago because their coverage was deplorable. When the rep warned me about the $200 early departure penalty, I replied that I would have gleefully paid twice that to get away. I have been with Verizon ever since. Now you know why.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Some of you have had a great experience with AT&T and a lousy one with Verizon. But I hope you get my point about what branding is and isn’t.